Re: "Covert" revision of D2 elligibility rules

sdrossboss <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:14:20 -0000

I am not the expert here and my post should not be interpreted as the 
end-all and be-all response but I was on the ICT staff last year and 
my understanding is that it is in fact the case that UCLA's Division 
II players, specifically the ones you mentioned, were on a filler 
team whose purpose was to make the brackets work out evenly. They had 
never intended on playing originally (again, according to what I 
heard) and thus made an agreement with NAQT that they should retain 
Division II eligibility because they agreed to play and in essence 
served no other function than to help the tournament run smoothly. 
Technically speaking then their names and team name should not have 
shown up anywhere in the stats however I expect that this was a 
more "clean" way to to do it as opposed to giving teams byes/forfeit 
wins. 

Again I do not remember exactly what happened but since I remember a 
discussion I had with Brendan Shapiro and Charles Meigs while they 
were in my car I do believe this to be correct.

-Ross

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, ater31337 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> While looking at the stats from the West Coast SCT, I noticed that
> UCLA put up some dominating numbers in the D2 bracket.  Further
> examination of individual stats showed that the tandem of Charles
> Meigs and Matthew Sherman put up some very strong stats against the 
D2
> competition... just like they did when they played D2 last year at 
ICT
> 2003, where Mr. Meigs was also the leading scorer.
> 
> In its official elligibility rules, NAQT affords D2 status to 
players
> who "Prior to the current competition year, [] have never played on 
a
> Sectionals team that qualified for the Intercollegiate Championship
> Tournament nor played at the Intercollegiate Championship Tournament
> at either the Division II or Division I levels."  Even in its most
> recent official exception, NAQT states "Players on teams... remain
> Division II ineligible, as do all teams that attended the ICT,
> regardless of the date of their invitation."  Under the public and
> official rules on D2 elligbility, UCLA's team was inelligible to 
play
> in D2 and broke the rules by playing.
> 
> When this issue came up on the hsquizbowl.org message board, several
> UCLA members claimed that NAQT had, in private, offered UCLA's 2003 
D2
> team an special exemption to elligbility rules whereas they could 
play
> in ICT 2003 and still retain their D2 elligbility.  I follow the 
scene
> pretty regularly and correspond often with several NAQT members, 
yet I
> have never heard anything of the sort.
> 
> If what UCLA is saying is true, however, then NAQT needs to do some
> serious explaining, namely why they would grant such an arbitrary 
and
> fundamentally contradictory exemption, and why they would keep it a
> secret that even the teams who would be paying money to compete
> against UCLA would not be aware of?  If NAQT had gone to the trouble
> of announcing and publicizing other exceptions to their elligbility
> rules, why would they keep this case a secret?
> 
> I just wanted to bring this issue to light, because D2 elligbility 
is
> always a spark of controversy and this issue seems especially 
serious.